Little-Acorn
05-30-2013, 11:01 AM
The House committee investigating the various scandals, just issued subpoenas for emails and other documents concerning the talking points changes from Sept. 12 onward.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/28/issa-subpoenas-state-department-for-benghazi-documents/
The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.
When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?
The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.
To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.
Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?
Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/28/issa-subpoenas-state-department-for-benghazi-documents/
The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.
When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?
The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.
To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.
Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?
Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?